I've also been using JLMC just lately to re-learn CW after a 24-25 year gap. I think the program's great and I'm on the verge of contributing. The business of re-learning all the characters didn't take long at all, even though it was in 1983 when I passed my 12WPM test.

I'm currently using JLMC to try to get up to 20-30WPM head copy speed and I find that I'm doing fine with smallish words at 20WPM but when I get 5/6 or more letter words I struggle. I know it will all come together with continued practice but I would like JLMC to churn out common English words of a maximum length set by me.

Sigurd will surely say that there's an option in the software to set the maximum word length. I've seen it. Trouble is: it doesn't work, even with the program loaded onto different computers (both XP Pro).

So... my aim now is to steadily increase the word length at any given speed if JLMC will allow me to do it this way.

"Just Learn Morse Code" is truly an amazing tool. You can cut and paste any text you find on the internet (or in your computer) into the program, and then play it back at any speed. This sure takes the drudgery out of speed building. Any of you guys that haven't tried it really need to. Thankyou very much Mr. Stenerson, for sharing this wonderful program with us. 73 de Tom, AB9NZP.S. Very handsome family on your website, 73.

> Koch said you should add another character once you score 90%. He> didn't say that you're done when you score 90% after adding the last> character. You should probably aim for something closer to 100%> when you know all the characters.

That may be the case, but I doubt that it was Koch's intention. When you're at %90 random characters you basically know the letters so I don't see why you wouldn't practice real text at that point and just usethe trainer to practice the letters you're having trouble with. Whatabout sticking out the last 10% copying random code groups could bebetter? Plus, if it takes the last 10% to go the last 40% for plaintext, it would be extremely slow going and that goes against Koch.

>> If you're able to score 100% on random characters at 20 wpm I> would be VERY surprised if you had to lower the speed for> plain text. Random characters words of random length are> very hard to copy 100% because you can't guess and you will> have significant problems remembering what was sent a few> characters ago. Even if your current experiences are telling> you otherwise, you're likely to find this to be true when you> become totally proficient and master head copy as well.

Prediction can hurt as much as it helps. You're screwed when you get itwrong.

If people who are proficient at plain text copy can't necessarily achieve100% random code group copy then it seems backwards to spend your timetrying to achieve 100% random code group copy. Why would you work on something that is harder than what you're ultimately trying to achieve?

> Prediction can hurt as much as it helps. You're > screwed when you get it wrong. > > > Thus - use software that scores you and that subtracts> > prediction from your score.

Sigurd, my point was that things balance out (sometimes prediction hurtsand sometimes it helps) so it doesn't really give you an artificialadvantage. Therefore, it is not an impediment to learning to copy andyou should worry about it.

> Why would you work on something that is harder > than what you're ultimately trying to achieve? > > > You're the one describing problems here. I just give> > suggestions for how to cope with them. If you'd rather keep> > your problems, that is obviously fine with me.

I was stating the problems I *had* and what worked for me in coping withthem. I don't see what is so wrong with challenging the logic of yoursuggestions and engaging in a discussion, since as far as I can tellall they are based on is logic. You are speculating on what Koch *wouldhave* said and you haven't cited anyone's experiences. So tell me whywe'll never solve our problems if we don't listen to your speculative,unproven suggestions?

> You are speculating on what Koch *would have* said> and you haven't cited anyone's experiences. So tell> me why we'll never solve our problems if we don't> listen to your speculative, unproven suggestions?

Once again, you appear to hold me to a totally different standard than any others - including yourself.

I haven't seen you make any citations for any of your own rantings in here. You continiously speculate, apparently based on your own problems learning the code at a usable speed.

My statements are based on much more than logic, although most of them are indeed logical. I have conducted extensive research on efficient ways of learning Morse code, I have spent a lot of time designing and implementing methods that makes it easier for people to learn and practice the code, I have received feedback from and had conversations with hundreds of users of the software, I have spent a lot of time using the software myself.

I also manage to find the time to work a few DX contacts every now and then.

The exact details of this - my background and experience - are none of your damned business. I will discuss anything I'm interested in, supply the amount of detail I see fit, and I'm not interested in whether you like what I write or not.

It's been a long time since I realized that you have some sort of problem with me. I don't have any clue how this problem started, but I don't really give a hoot either.

> Once again, you appear to hold me to a totally different standard > than any others - including yourself.

> I haven't seen you make any citations for any of your own rantings in > here. You continiously speculate, apparently based on your own > problems learning the code at a usable speed.

Yes, and I'm not claiming any more than that (other than having found methods that worked for me for solving those problems). I'd hope that we'd all question (or hold to a higher standard) someone who speaks authoritatively and insists that if we don't follow his suggestions then we won't be able to solve our problems.

> My statements are based on much more than logic, although most of > them are indeed logical. I have conducted extensive research on > efficient ways of learning Morse code, I have spent a lot of time > designing and implementing methods that makes it easier for people > to learn and practice the code, I have received feedback from and > had conversations with hundreds of users of the software, I have > spent a lot of time using the software myself.

Great, that's what I've been trying to engage with you but instead of sharing you'd rather just shoot down anyone who challenges you with dismissive statements.

> The exact details of this - my background and experience - are none > of your damned business. I will discuss anything I'm interested in, > supply the amount of detail I see fit, and I'm not interested in > whether you like what I write or not.

Fine. I understand now that your comments will never be anything but vacuous.

AE6RF, have I been misleading? I'm new, I've been on the air since Sept '07 and I'm at around 20 - 25wpm head copy. Learning morse code is fresh for me so I'm sharing my experience and trying to get others who have more experience to do so as well.

Actually, I use HRD and it's log for all my logging and it interfaces with the QRZ to automatically fill out the personal information on the person I am in QSO with. Also helps out in finding out where to point a beam.

"Another problem with koch is that you get much better at the early characters in the koch sequence because you practice them for much longer. (Sigurd will tell us that this is partially taken care of by his automatic modification of the freq of letters depending on the mistakes you make) I found that even when I completed my 20wpm koch training at 90% accuracy, I could only copy real QSOs at about 15wpm. Also, if I split the characters into halves and tested myself separately on each half, I was 98% for the first half of the characters but only 70% for the second half. "

but Kochs research also showed that if you practices on one bulk of characters and then afterwood practiced on another bulk of character ignoring the first bulk, after the end of the second bulk, the students had all forgotten the first bulk of characters and had to start over again. I'm using the JLMC software myself, and I find it very useful for my part. The Koch method works very fine for me.

Copyright 2000-2018 eHam.net, LLC
eHam.net is a community web site for amateur (ham) radio operators around the world.
Contact the site with comments or questions.
WEBMASTER@EHAM.NETSite Privacy Statement